Why Assassination Necessary

[Jim Root]

Paul

Ruby is a subject that I attempted to avoid till I finally came to the conclusion that there may well have been a conspiracy of some sort. The logical answer is that if Oswald was a patsy or if he had a motive (which I believe) he would, by necessity have to die. The other answer is that Ruby, as the Warren Commission reports he said, did it to protect Jackie Kennedy and her kids from the ordeal of a trial.

The record shows that it was McCloy and Dulles that convinced the Commissioners to not deal with Ruby and the Ruby question until after the trial of Jack Ruby. This decission created a time lapse between the actual event (Oswald's assassination) and the commission collecting testimony from Oswald. When his testimony was taken only two commiccioners were present, Warren and Ford. Ruby wanted to go to Washington to tell his real story, something that never happened. He wanted to take a lie detector test and he also speaks of Edwin Walker........

Ruby was never taken to Washington but he was allowed to take a lie detector test as he requested. He had trouble with a particular question, number 2.

(From the Testimony of Bell P. Herndon who adminsitered the lie detector test)

Mr. Specter.

Will movement or speaking cause a variation in the tracings ordinarily, Mr. Herndon?

Mr. Herndon.

Yes. Body movements while speaking any phrase or sentence would certainly cause changes in the physiological patterns as displayed on the polygraph. I made notation of that, however, and that explains the changes. On question No. 2, Mr. Ruby did show a significant drop in the relative blood pressure. This question pertained to: "Did you go to the Dallas police station at any time on Friday November 22, 1963, before you went to the synagogue? I asked him about this question later when he responded "No," and I noticed a physiological change. He advised that there was some man by the name of John Rutledge, and he made an association with proceedings at the trial which I have reason to believe this gentleman, John Rutledge, differed with what Ruby stated as to when he went to the synagogue. Due to the nature of this change, however, it is possible that it was caused by a body motion that I failed to detect during the actual response. I notice that the cardio pen dropped all the way down and hit what we call the limit screws. This frequently is caused by a sudden rapid shift in his body position, and this change could have been caused by a body movement.

With regard to the other relevant questions in this series, question 4, question 6, and question 8, there was no significant deviation from his normal physiological patterns. (Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. XIV - Page 594)

It seems Jack Ruby may have been nervous about answering questions that dealt with John Rutledge, who identified Ruby with the "two out of state" newsmen, and his trip to the synagogue. This particular question created a "a physiological change" or was it just body motion that Herndon, " failed to detect during the actual response?"

"I saw Jack and two out-of-state reporters, whom I did not know, leave the elevator door and proceed toward those television cameras, to go around the corner where Captain Fritz's office was. Jack walked between them. These two out-of-state reporters had big press cards pinned on their coats, great big red ones, I think they said "President Kennedy's Visit to Dallas-Press", or something like that. And Jack didn't have one, but the man on either side of him did, and they walked pretty rapidly from the elevator area past the policeman, and Jack was bent over like this-writting on a piece of paper, and talking to one of the reporters, and pointing to something on the peice of paper, he was kind of hynched over." Newsman John Rutledge (WC Report Pg 340)

"Detective Augustus M. Eberhardt, who also recalled that he first saw Ruby earlier in the evening, said Ruby carried a note pad and professed to be a translator for the Israeli press." (WC Report Pg. 342)

Nobody seems to be able to identify these two "out of state" reporters who were engaged in conversation with Ruby at the Dallas Police Department.

Earlier in the evening:

"At 9:00 p.m. he (Ruby) telphoned Ralph Paul but was unable to persuade Paul to join him at synagogue services." (WC Report, Pg 338)

"From his apartment, Ruby drove to Temple Shearith Israel, arriving near the end of a 2-hour service which had begun at 8 p.m." (WC Report, Pg 339)

The Warren report establishes that Ruby had "two out of state" reporters or associates with him when he entered the DPD. it also seems that he may have been caught in a lie on his lie detector test on a question that dealt with these two men and his trip to the synagogue. Rather than investigating the answer to that question further, it is explained away by suggesting that body motion that was not noticed by the administrator could have caused the "changes in the physiological patterns as displayed on the polygraph."

Long before I took the time to look closely at the Ruby record I had stumbled accross the name of an interesting historical figure named David "Mickey" Marcus during my research. I filed it away for later review.

Have you ever heard of David Marcus?

Jim Root

[Paul Troglia]

Hi Jim,

I have heard of David Marcus. He was buried at West Point after serving in the Israeli Army. Something of a historical oddity. Does he have connections to any of our cast of characters?

[Paul Troglia]

Hi Tim,

You're right about not calling someone a Communist (to the extent that it is bad to be a Communist), but I do not lose sleep calling Oswald a murderer (and a lot of other things, like twerp and wife-beater). In fact, he was a multiple murderer (Kennedy and Tippit). It is also a legal principle in this country that a statement is not libelous or slanderous if it is true.

PS: The precise definition of "twerp" I'm not sure of but if you look it up in the dictionary, you'll probably see Oswald's picture.

PPS: As a devotee of conspiracy theories, have you ever felt like a rat in a maze that never gets to the gumdrop?

[Paul Troglia]

Paul,

I have a question and I hope you can answer it.

Can you explain to me where Oswald learned how to shoot from a elevated position , on a moving target?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kennedy's limo was moving away from the window. Elm Street also goes down hill, so from above, Oswald had a straight shot. He did not have to "lead" his target, like a duck shooter. And with a muzzle velocity of 2000 feet per second, the path of the bullet in the distance it had to go was also a straight line. Add to that a 4.5 power scope and the shot was, and I mean this literally and figuratively, a no-brainer.

Is this question really what makes you doubt Oswald's guilt?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

___________________________________--

Paul:

Watch the Bob Groden video (1993). Then tell us it was LHO acting alone.

Are you working for Posner???

I still think you are a put on.

And you said you'd love to prosecute LHO. I trust then you know rules of evidence and legal procedure, what is relevent and admissible, The hearsay rule and exceptions to, how to do voir dire, how to challenge jurors for cause, how to cross examine witnessses. How to introduce evidence. (Just for openers).

The critical community got an opportunity to ask a few questions last year of Sen Arlen Specter. My friend Steve Jones was there and saw this whole thing. His report to me is on either this site or Wim's, don't remember which. READ IT. Specter is an atty and just look at his answers to Mark Lane. Priceless.

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dawn, I will do just that--rent the video. And because it is you, I'll watch it with a keen eye. But I gotta tell ya, the Zapruder film, the real thing, has been analyzed more than "Citizen Kane" and with more than just a stop watch and eye loup.

You mentioned in an earlier post that there is a spiritual aspect to all of this. I believe you have said it perfectly. That is the core of all conspiracy theories. The desire, the need, the craving to lead people out of a desert they believe they're in. Alas, it is all mirage, for he who troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.

[Jim Root]

Paul

I am sorry that I have not responded sooner to your last post. Computer failures and the duties of “other hats” have delayed my posting.

I was happy to read that you have knowledge of David Marcus. He is a remarkable historical figure and I will attempt to draw a connection between him, John J. McCloy, Maxwell Taylor and James Jesus Angleton in my next post (two previous attempts at making this post have failed).

First I would like to provide some excerpts from the Ruby's Lie Detector Test and information taken form Appendix XVI of the Warren Report dealing with the Biography of Jack Ruby.

First, let me provide information taken from the Testimony of Mr. Bell P. Herndon about the lie detector test that he administered to Jack Ruby.

Mr. Specter.

Would there be any difference in psychological reactions, Mr. Herndon, on a pattern of deception which the subject considered insignificant as opposed to a pattern of deception which the subject considered significant?

Mr. Herndon.

Generally the concept of the polygraph technique is that we are attempting to find out what a man's physiological responses will be in any area where he is attempting to deceive. The content of the actual deception is not particularly important. We want to get a tracing of where he is attempting to deceive. Now under a situation such as Mr. Ruby was in here, it is more probable that he is more concerned about these relevant questions than these irrelevant or control-type questions. In other words, the relevant questions have more to do with his well-being or what he is trying to prove to the Commission. However, the chart here still shows that he attempted to deceive with regard to what considered insignificant, but it tends to indicate to me that he will respond to a practice of deception, if that answers your question.

Looking at the statement, “The content of the actual deception is not particularly important. We want to get a tracing of where he is attempting to deceive.” Can we find where Ruby attempts to deceive? Are some insignificant questions significant?

Mr. Specter.

Would you start there on series 3a with the relevant questions, the responses and your evaluation of any significant psychological deviation, please?

Mr. Herndon.

This particular series 3a was what would be called a modified peak of tension series. Ruby was carefully instructed prior to the series that four relevant questions were going to be asked in a consecutive order.

Question No. 3: "Did you first decide to shoot Oswald on Friday night?" He responded "No."

Question No. 4: "Did you first decide to shoot Oswald on Saturday morning?" He responded "No."

Question No. 5: "Did you first decide to shoot Oswald Saturday night?" He responded "No."

Question No. 6: "Did you first decide to shoot Oswald Sunday morning?" He responded "Yes."

These are the only relevant questions in this series. A review of the chart with regard to his responses in this series reveals that Ruby's blood pressure continually rose from the question No. 3 until it reached a peak just as question No. 6 was asked. In addition it was noted that there was a rather noticeable change in his breathing pattern as question No. 6 was approached. There is a slight impact in the GSR tracing as question No. 6 is approached. This would mean to me in interpreting the chart that Ruby reached a peak of tension as the question No. 6 was about to be asked in which he responded "Yes" to "Did you first decide to shoot Oswald Sunday morning?" This particular type of series cannot be interpreted with regard to whether or not there was any deception, but it does indicate that Ruby built up a physiological peak of tension to the time of Sunday morning with regard to his decision of shooting Oswald.

We have an interesting statement here, “This particular type of series cannot be interpreted with regard to whether or not there was any deception, but it does indicate that Ruby built up a physiological peak of tension to the time of Sunday morning with regard to his decision of shooting Oswald.” Did Ruby’s first thoughts of shooting Oswald begin on Friday night? Mr. Herndons dialog with Mr. Specter continues:

Mr. Specter.

Is there any correlation between the building up of a peak of tension and the accurate answer to the series?

Mr. Herndon.

In normal usage of polygraph technique where a peak of tension is used, if the series is effective, the party will usually respond to a particular item which happens to be the most pertinent with regard to the offense. In this case it appears that Ruby projected his entire thoughts and built up a physiological peak of tension to the point of Sunday morning.

Does this infer that the build up of a “physiological peak of tension to the point of Sunday morning” with regards to the questions or to the actual events? With each question was he telling a greater lie?

The questions from series six displayed a point were Ruby may have been less than truthful but the question was insignificant, to a degree.

From a review of Mr. Ruby's polygrams, on series 6, it was noted that there were no significant physiological variations to his response to the relevant questions. It was noted that Mr. Ruby did display slight suppression in his breathing pattern, and a relative decrease in blood pressure with an increase in the heart amplitude at question No. 7. This question was: "Did you ever overcharge a customer?" Mr. Ruby replied "No." However, after the series, this question was discussed with him briefly, and he did make mention of the fact that there had been some trouble at his nightclub with regard to the waitresses and big bills. This could be interpreted as a possible deception pattern in that he hedged with regard to the question "Did you ever overcharge a customer." The total chart minutes of series No. 6 was 2 minutes 50 seconds.

In this series 6 question it is easy to understand that Ruby may have lied. But since it was a control question it was just passed by, as were other control questions as not “significant.”

In series 6 we find another “control question” with similar “possible deception pattern(s)”

Mr. Specter.

Were there any other significant findings, in series No. 7?

Mr. Herndon.

There was a significant change in his breathing pattern and also a slight decrease in his blood pressure when I asked him the question "Did you attend the synagogue regularly?"

However, this is a control type question, and as later discussed with him there was some area of doubt in his mind as to whether he attended the synagogue regularly as much as he would like to. The total chart minutes on series 7 was 2 minutes 55 seconds.

Mr. Herndon.

Series 9 contains 7 questions, all being relevant.

Question No. 1: "Did you ever meet Oswald at your post office box?" Mr. Ruby replied "No."

Question No. 2: "Did you use your post office mail box to do any business with Mexico or Cuba?" Mr. Ruby replied "No."

Question No. 3: "Did you do business with Castro Cuba?" Mr. Ruby replied "No."

Question No. 4: "Was your trip to Cuba solely for pleasure?" Mr. Ruby replied "Yes."

Question No. 5: "Have you now told us the truth concerning why you carried $2,200 in cash on you?" Mr. Ruby replied "Yes."

Question No. 6: "Did any foreign influence cause you to shoot Oswald?" Mr. Ruby replied "No."

Question No. 7: "Did you shoot Oswald because of any influence of the underworld?" Mr. Ruby replied "No."

In interpreting his chart with regard to this particular series of questions, there is no noticeable significant deviation in his physiological pattern except at question No. 6. According to my notation on the chart, Ruby moved his head at this point, and there was a deviation caused by this movement in his blood pressure tracing and also in his pneumograph tracing. His heart rate maintained a consistent rate of approximately 66 to 72 heart beats per minute throughout this series. No significant changes.

As I have posted in earlier threads:

Mr. Specter.

Will movement or speaking cause a variation in the tracings ordinarily, Mr. Herndon?

Mr. Herndon.

Yes. Body movements or speaking any phrase or sentence would certainly cause changes in the physiological patterns as displayed on the polygraph. I made notation of that, however, and that explains the changes On question No. 2, Mr. Ruby did show a significant drop in the relative blood pressure. This question pertained to: "Did you go to the Dallas police station at any time on Friday November 22, 1963, before you went to the synagogue? I asked him about this question later when he responded "No," and I noticed a physiological change. He advised that there was some man by the name of John Rutledge, and he made an association with proceedings at the trial which I have reason to believe this gentleman, John Rutledge, differed with what Ruby stated as to when he went to the synagogue. Due to the nature of this change, however, it is possible that it was caused by a body motion that I failed to detect during the actual response.

I notice that the cardio pen dropped all the way down and hit what we call the limit screws. This frequently is caused by a sudden rapid shift in his body position, and this change could have been caused by a body movement.

With regard to the other relevant questions in this series, question 4, question 6, and question 8, there was no significant deviation from his normal physiological patterns.

Also in series 3, question No. 7 is of interest. Mr. Ruby was asked: "While in the service did you receive any disciplinary action?" There is a noticeable rise in his blood pressure after he responded "No." This question had been discussed rather thoroughly with him, and after the series was run, he admitted that he had been called in before his commanding officer regarding a brawl he had while in the military service. He also commented: "Evidently you are getting a good reading." This could be interpreted as a deception pattern inasmuch as in his mind he realized he had been in some trouble in the military service; however, did not want to truthfully answer the question as he considered it insignificant.However, he did admit that he had been in some trouble with his commanding officer regarding-fighting. This is considered a Control question, and its response is greater than his response to the previous relevant question which I had related.

Looking at this event, while Ruby was in the military, more closely we find in Appendix XVI the details of this subject are dealt with more closely. Why did he lie about this subject and after getting caught make the statement, "Evidently you are getting a good reading."

Two persons who recalled Ruby while he was in the Army Air Forces asserted that he was extremely sensitive to insulting remarks about Jews. When, during an argument, a sergeant called Ruby a "Jew bastard," Ruby reportedly attacked him and beat him with his fists.

We also find in Ruby’s biography:

Ruby, with several friends, frequently attempted to disrupt rallies of the German-American Bund. One acquaintance reported that Ruby was responsible for "cracking a few heads" of Bund members. Apparently he joined in this activity for ethnic rather than political reasons. The young men in the group were not organized adherents of any particular political creed, but were pool hall and tavern companions from Ruby's Jewish neighborhood who gathered on the spur of the moment to present opposition when they learned that the pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic Bund movement was planning a meeting. Hyman Rubenstein testified that Ruby would fight with any person making derogatory comments about, his ethnic origins, and others have stated that Ruby would fight with anyone he suspected of pro-Nazi or anti-Semitic tendencies.

And;

Following his return from the Army, Ruby was described as ready to fight with any person who insulted Jews or the military. Earl Ruby testified that on one occasion in 1946, Jack returned from downtown Chicago with his suit covered with blood. He explained at that time that he had fought with a person who had called him a "dirty Jew or something like that. "

Mr. Herndons comment, “…we are attempting to find out what a man's physiological responses will be in any area where he is attempting to deceive. The content of the actual deception is not particularly important. We want to get a tracing of where he is attempting to deceive.” is, I believe, relevant.

We find that Ruby seems to have attempted to deceive on repeated questions that dealt with his Jewish religion and his attendance at the synagogue. Herndon also needed to explain away the reaction to the question, "Did any foreign influence cause you to shoot Oswald?"

Also from Appendix XVI:

“Reared in the Jewish faith, Jack Ruby was not especially devout. Rabbi Hillel Silverman, whose conservative temple Ruby favored, reported that when Ruby's father died in 1958, Ruby came to services twice daily for the prescribed period of 11 months to recite the traditional memorial prayer. Ruby normally attended services only on the Jewish high truly days and he was quite unfamiliar with the Hebrew language.

Ruby was apparently somewhat sensitive to his identity as a Jew. He forbade his comedians to tell stories directed at Jews or Jewish practices and, on several occasions after 1947, he fought with persons making derogatory remarks about his ethnic origins. The evidence also indicates that he was deeply upset that an advertisement insulting President Kennedy appeared above a Jewish-sounding name.

Did Ruby’s religion play a role in the death of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Jim Root

[Paul Troglia]

Hello again Jim,

I read your post vis a vis Ruby and the lie detector, and I am impressed with your analysis. You definitely don't allow inconsistencies, regardless of how minor they seem to be, escape you. I say that as a compliment. But to me, the greater "truth" in the whole test was the revelation that Ruby was capable of and had been violent (beating up the anti-Semite) in the past and lied about it. Why he would lie about having been in trouble before, when the "trouble" he was in now blew that off the map, is revealing of his character. For me, it reinforces the notion that the guy had trouble with reality, or, at least, proportion.

But to your question, did Ruby's religion play a part in the death of Lee Harvey Oswald: Yes. But I'm not saying Judaism, or any Jewish cabal, or Israel. It was a factor in his personality, and his defensiveness about it and his sensitivity to it, I believe, were critical in his hair-trigger mood swings.

By the way, and I know you know this, but Ruby was in line in a telegraph office before he shot Oswald. One more customer in front of him, and he would have missed the transfer. I think it shows Ruby didn't "plan" the killing per se, just lost it, as he had before, and, well, the rest we know.

[George Bollschweiler]

Ruby was never taken to Washington but he was allowed to take a lie detector test as he requested.

It would be interesting to know why it was refused to take Ruby to Washington. If

they were really looking for answers from Ruby and, as I did read somewhere, he

said he would talk but not in Dallas what were the reasons not to take him to Washington?

IMO the lie dedector test is even today a very argumentative technique and many

countries over here do not allow the results in court and it can not be ordered by

a prosecuter (e.g. Germany).

[Paul Troglia]

Ruby was never taken to Washington but he was allowed to take a lie detector test as he requested.

It would be interesting to know why it was refused to take Ruby to Washington. If

they were really looking for answers from Ruby and, as I did read somewhere, he

said he would talk but not in Dallas what were the reasons not to take him to Washington?

IMO the lie dedector test is even today a very argumentative technique and many

countries over here do not allow the results in court and it can not be ordered by

a prosecuter (e.g. Germany).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi George,

You're right about the effectiveness of lie detectors. As I read the transcript provided by Jim Root, you can see that what words are used in the questions affect the result. For instance, if someone said to me, while I was connected to a lie detector, "Did you ever cut diamonds?" I would answer yes, only because I mowed the lawn for our baseball team. The result would be a truthful statement, which would raise suspicion on the part of the investigators.

Paul Troglia

[Jim Root]

Paul

A man called "Michael Stone’ arrived in Tel Aviv in January 1948, to confront a nearly impossible situation. The widely separated Jewish settlements in Palestine were surrounded by a sea of hostile Arabs. The newly created Israel would have no defensible borders, no air power, a few tanks and ancient artillery pieces and almost no arms or ammunition. The Haganah was an effective underground organization but it had no experience as a regular national army. Facing it were well-supplied Arab armies determined to drive the Jews into the sea. The pro-Arab British administration in Palestine prevented the importation of military supplies to the Israelis.’

“Undaunted, Stone designed a command structure for Israel's new army and wrote manuals to train it, adapting his experience at Ranger school to the Haganah's special needs. He identified Israel's weakest points as the scattered settlements in the Negev and the new quarter of Jerusalem. When Israel declared independence and the Arab armies attacked in May 1948, Israel was ready, thanks to Stone's planning. His hit-and-run tactics kept the Egyptian army in the Negev off balance. When the Jewish section of Jerusalem was about to fall, Marcus ordered the construction of a road to bring additional men and equipment to break the Arab siege just days before the United Nations negotiated a cease fire. Israel had withstood the Arab assault with its borders virtually intact. In gratitude, Ben Gurion named Mickey Marcus Lieutenant General, the first general in the army of Israel in nearly two thousand years.” American Jewish Historical Society

David “Mickey” Marcus, aka Michael Stone was one of the first members of the United States Army to fight for/with a foreign nation after the creation of the CIA. Marcus was, to say the least an interesting figure in history.

From: Cast A Giant Shadow, The Story of Mickey Marcus, Ted Berkman writes:

Late in 1947 "Michael Stone,’ an ostensible ‘foundry worker’ with meaty arms, a booming laugh but no sign of his West Point ring, bounced into the Tel Aviv office of David Ben-Gurion. "We're in trouble, Boss."

Three years earlier, with D-Day looming, the Pentagon's Civil Affairs Division had faced the prospect of administering three hundred million people in newly liberated territories. Reluctantly, C.A.D. chief John Hilldring agreed to have his chief trouble-shooter, Mickey Marcus, "observe" the occupation scene from London. D-Day passed, with no word from Mickey. Finally General Hilldring was able to reach Lt. Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, allied commander in France.

"I'm looking for one of my boys who was detached in London, Colonel Marcus."

"Mickey Marcus? He's over here somewhere, John. Landed with the 101st Airborne."

"He did what?"

"Came in with Max Taylor's outfit, the first day."

"The first? But that was three weeks ago. Where is he now?"

"I wouldn't know, John. He's been all over the lot. But I've got a war on my hands. I can't go playing wet nurse to your colonels."

Capitalizing on old West Point acquaintance with Airborne General Maxwell Taylor, Mickey had bluffed his way aboard a C-46 and, innocent of previous jump experience, joined 10,000 paratroopers descending on France. Landing safely, he assembled a combat team and never stopped, running into an astonished Max Taylor, who confessed to "a sneaking admiration for a guy who could have been parked in a comfortable hotel room."

Back home in 1947, from France and Yalta and Nuremberg, Mickey was looking forward to a peaceful life as a Brooklyn lawyer when an emissary from Israel knocked on his door. The new state desperately needed a senior military adviser. Mickey scoured the landscape; the only door that was open was his own."

Within this story we find the names of Maxwell Taylor, a long time friend and John Hildring the CAD (Civil Affairs Division of the State Department) Chief. John Hildring along with presidential advisor David Niles would play a leading role in shaping US policy leading up to the creation of a Jewish State.

Quoting from David T. Zabecki

“On a warm July day in 1948, a funeral was held at the U.S. Military Academy in New York for David Daniel Marcus, class of 1924. In many ways it was a typical West Point funeral, with a bugler, a firing party and a number of distinguished mourners. In one respect, however, the ceremony was unique. Although an American flag covered his coffin, Marcus was the first soldier buried at West Point who had died fighting under another nation's flag. Only two weeks before his death, he had been appointed the first divisional level field commander in the army of the fledgling state of Israel.’

“Using his training experience as justification, Marcus tried to talk the Army into giving him a field command with a Ranger unit, but he was unsuccessful. In the spring of 1943, Marcus was posted back to the Pentagon to become chief of planning for the War Department's Civil Affairs Division (CAD), headed by Maj. Gen. John H. Hilldring. For most of the rest of the war, Marcus, now a full colonel, found himself on a whirlwind tour of the corridors of power.’

“While at CAD, Marcus served as a legal and military government adviser at some of the war's most important Allied conferences. Those included Cairo in November 1943; Dumbarton Oaks, where the United Nations was born; and Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam, where the postwar world order was forged. According to the citation for his Distinguished Service Medal (an unusually high service decoration for a colonel), Marcus played a key role in the "negotiation and drafting of the Italian Surrender Instrument, the Instrument of Unconditional Surrender of Germany, and the international machinery to be used for the control of Germany after her total defeat."

Although locked into a general staff job, Marcus did figure out a way to make one trip to the front lines. In early May 1944, he convinced Hilldring to send him to London on temporary duty "to provide liaison and act as observer in the implementation of military government policies for France." At first Hilldring was pleased because Marcus managed to answer on the spot most of the civil affairs questions that usually wound up at the Pentagon. Then, in the second week of June, Hilldring realized that he had not heard from Marcus since the end of May. After a few transatlantic phone calls, Hilldring learned from Lt. Gen. Walter Bedell Smith that Marcus was "somewhere in France," having jumped on D-Day, June 6, with the 101st Airborne Division.

Marcus used a very elastic interpretation of his orders from Hilldring, combined with the fact that he had been a fellow cadet at West Point with the 101st's commander, Maj. Gen. Maxwell Taylor (class of 1922), to get himself on a Curtiss C-46 in the first wave. Of all the soldiers who jumped with the 101st that day, only Marcus and one other had never jumped before.’

“Once on the ground in Normandy, Marcus collected groups of the widely scattered paratroopers and organized them into patrols. He led several of those patrols himself, engaging in firefights with German units and, on one occasion, freeing a group of captured U.S. paratroopers. As the 101st regrouped over the next few days, Marcus finally bumped into Taylor, who asked him, "What the hell are you doing here?" Marcus characteristically replied, "Oh, just looking around." Back in Washington, a frustrated Hilldring finally had to issue the order: "Find Marcus. Arrest him if you have to--but send him back!" Shortly after that, Marcus was on a plane to the United States, still in his dirty field uniform.’

“Immediately after the end of the fighting in Europe, General Lucius D. Clay, commander of U.S. occupation forces in Germany, requested that Marcus be assigned to his staff. Clay's standing instructions at the time were that all senior officers in Germany were to visit the recently liberated Dachau concentration camp. As a civil affairs officer, Marcus was well-acquainted with Nazi wartime atrocities. But even that knowledge did not prepare him for the horrors he saw at Dachau. He had never been a Zionist, but now he started to rethink his position on a future Jewish state.’

“During his tour in Germany, Marcus served as executive for internal affairs of the U.S. Group Control Council, then its acting chief of staff, and then the U.S. secretary general in occupied Berlin. Much of his time and energy was devoted to improving conditions for the vast numbers of displaced persons in Europe. Despite his anger over Nazi treatment of the Jews, at a White House conference Marcus argued strongly (along with John J. McCloy) against adopting the drastic Morganthau Plan, which would have reduced postwar Germany to an agricultural state--one vast farmland.

In early 1946, Hilldring managed to get Marcus back from General Clay, this time to head the Pentagon's War Crimes Division. Marcus was responsible for selecting the judges, prosecutors and lawyers for the major war crimes trials in Germany and Japan. He attended the Nuremberg Trials, where one of his main concerns was the complete documentation of Nazi atrocities for future generations.”

At the end of the War we find Marcus rising to the position of U.S. Secretary General in occupied Berlin where he would be working with Richard Helms, Peter Thompkins and Frank Wisner of the OSS. But it is as a CAD officer and the negotiations that led to the surrender of Italy that I find the most interesting in relation to the assassination of JFK.

David Marcus, although he perished in 1948, was in 1943 part of what I have come to call the Italian group who first came together in North Africa and then moved with US troops to Italy and beyond. To many names in this “old boys” network pop up in the Kennedy assassination story. The events that were occurring within the State Department and the Office of the Secretary of War in 1943 would, in my opinion, change world history.

The rest of what I will be writing will be drawn primarily from, UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II, Special Studies, CIVIL AFFAIRS:

SOLDIERS BECOME GOVERNORS by Harry L. Coles and Albert K. Weinberg Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 62-60068 First Printed 1964-CMH Pub 11-3

With the liberation of Sicily the State Department found that the Civilian Authorities within State were unable to provide for the administration of civilian government in occupied territories. Within a short period of time Assistant Secretary of State John Hildring and Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy were tasked with making some form of Government work in the portions of land that were coming under Allied control in Europe. “The Army thus did not need to press for the supply responsibility which the President assigned; it received the assignment, and indeed a much larger mission in other civil affairs matters, simply by default.”“

"Had the (original) plan been carried out, the history of American participation in civil affairs would have provided a most interesting test of a novel scheme of control peculiarly appropriate for a democracy. The failure to carry it out meant placing undue tax upon the Army’s administrative energies. And , since the control of administration necessarily entails an involvement in problems of policy, the failure also placed upon soldiers the responsibility of political and economic judgments which often were outside their normal sphere and, though not necessarily beyond their competence, certainly beyond their inclination.”

We find that suddenly the Army, under the leadership of John J. McCloy was tasked with involving themselves in the convoluted world of Italian politics. Chief negotiator was David Marcus and the primary “go between” became his friend, General Maxwell Taylor. By April of 1943 the War Department was in the civilian control business.

“[Msg, Eisenhower to Brig Gen Maxwell D. Taylor, Actg Chief, AMM, 5 Oct 43, ACC files, 10000/100/3]

♦ ♦ ♦ The Marshal has shown every willingness to co-operate effectively but failure to declare war is militating against the position of the Italian Government and the recognition we can accord it. I am well aware that His Majesty and his family, the Marshal and other members of the Government are personally exerting themselves to the utmost to inspire resistance to the Germans, but in the matter of formal declaration of war they must act decisively and without further delay. The world will understand decisive action but further temporizing will be interpreted as a desire on the part of the Italian Government to evade definite responsibility. I repeat that you should present this matter to the proper authorities in the most emphatic way as I consider it of vital importance at this stage of relations between Italy and the United Nations.”

By October 1943 we find Maxwell Taylor in the roll of Acting Chief, American Military Mission a phrase that would, in later years, be associated with covert operations. In Taylor’s official West Point bio this position is not recorded. We also find Taylor in the position of official arm twister for Eisenhower. Marcus is writing the terms of the surrender and John J. McCloy is the man overseeing the whole show.

The arm twisting by the CAD and the War Department continues until the capture of Rome, at which time James Jesus Angleton is given the Rome Office of the OSS and the beginnings of US controlled puppet governments becomes a reality and is mirrored in Greece, Iran, Guatamala, etc., etc.

Jim Root

[Al Carrier]

Why would a plot to kill JFK be necessary if the conspiracy was as all powerful as described throughout this forum?  Why not let the masses believe in the power of the president, while they (the conspiracy) pull the strings, you know, like the Wizard of Oz, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul,

As a 22 year veteran LE Officer, I have a tendency to look at motive. In a case that has gone unsolved as long as this one, the motive takes roots and shows what transpired after the fact that would not have if the assassination would not have taken place.

Considering the mood in the White House in late October toward SE Asia and the NSAMs produced regarding it. While it is clear that JFK had reservations as to the success of the Diem Government, he was still of the mindset that Diem supported that additional troops were not the answer as was financial and military supply aid was. They had to win their own war. Diem was assassinated at the beginning of November and the first of three planned attempts on the life of JFK came at the same time. Chicago on the first, which was aborted due to intelligence gathering and his trip cancelled. Miami on the 18th due to intel gathering and choppering him into the speaking engagement. And then the lack of intel with the success of the plot in Dallas. Regardless of how powerful those were that surrounded the presidency, do you think his intentions on pulling troops out of VN would have been reversed with JFK in office?

Al

[Shanet Clark]

I agree with Al.

The foreign policy imperatives are what drive these conspiratorial forces.

the DIEM - minh situation, the Lansdale containment, the Arbenz settlement,

all these point to MARSHALL CARTER, MAXWELL TAYLOR and RICHARD HELMS

in a paramilitary joint removal.............

[Dawn Meredith]

Paul,

I have a question and I hope you can answer it.

Can you explain to me where Oswald learned how to shoot from a elevated position , on a moving target?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kennedy's limo was moving away from the window. Elm Street also goes down hill, so from above, Oswald had a straight shot. He did not have to "lead" his target, like a duck shooter. And with a muzzle velocity of 2000 feet per second, the path of the bullet in the distance it had to go was also a straight line. Add to that a 4.5 power scope and the shot was, and I mean this literally and figuratively, a no-brainer.

Is this question really what makes you doubt Oswald's guilt?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

___________________________________--

Paul:

Watch the Bob Groden video (1993). Then tell us it was LHO acting alone.

Are you working for Posner???

I still think you are a put on.

And you said you'd love to prosecute LHO. I trust then you know rules of evidence and legal procedure, what is relevent and admissible, The hearsay rule and exceptions to, how to do voir dire, how to challenge jurors for cause, how to cross examine witnessses. How to introduce evidence. (Just for openers).

The critical community got an opportunity to ask a few questions last year of Sen Arlen Specter. My friend Steve Jones was there and saw this whole thing. His report to me is on either this site or Wim's, don't remember which. READ IT. Specter is an atty and just look at his answers to Mark Lane. Priceless.

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

______________________

ps The email from researcher Steve Jones to which I was referring is on this forum, I saw it earlier. You just need to click on it to make the print larger.

Dawn

[Dawn Meredith]

Paul,

I have a question and I hope you can answer it.

Can you explain to me where Oswald learned how to shoot from a elevated position , on a moving target?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kennedy's limo was moving away from the window. Elm Street also goes down hill, so from above, Oswald had a straight shot. He did not have to "lead" his target, like a duck shooter. And with a muzzle velocity of 2000 feet per second, the path of the bullet in the distance it had to go was also a straight line. Add to that a 4.5 power scope and the shot was, and I mean this literally and figuratively, a no-brainer.

Is this question really what makes you doubt Oswald's guilt?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

___________________________________--

Paul:

Watch the Bob Groden video (1993). Then tell us it was LHO acting alone.

Are you working for Posner???

I still think you are a put on.

And you said you'd love to prosecute LHO. I trust then you know rules of evidence and legal procedure, what is relevent and admissible, The hearsay rule and exceptions to, how to do voir dire, how to challenge jurors for cause, how to cross examine witnessses. How to introduce evidence. (Just for openers).

The critical community got an opportunity to ask a few questions last year of Sen Arlen Specter. My friend Steve Jones was there and saw this whole thing. His report to me is on either this site or Wim's, don't remember which. READ IT. Specter is an atty and just look at his answers to Mark Lane. Priceless.

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dawn, I will do just that--rent the video. And because it is you, I'll watch it with a keen eye. But I gotta tell ya, the Zapruder film, the real thing, has been analyzed more than "Citizen Kane" and with more than just a stop watch and eye loup.

You mentioned in an earlier post that there is a spiritual aspect to all of this. I believe you have said it perfectly. That is the core of all conspiracy theories. The desire, the need, the craving to lead people out of a desert they believe they're in. Alas, it is all mirage, for he who troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

_____________________

So Paul, by this am I to understand that you believe in no political conspiracies???

What about Watergate? Was that not a conspiracy?

What about the entire Roman empire?

What about the plot to kill Jesus?

What about the CIA/Mafia plots to kill Castro?

Where do you draw the line? Is it only the JFk conspiracy you do not believe in?

Hope you enjoy Bob's video. I challenge you to watch two more movies: Executive Action, then watch 7 days in May. Both old movies and perhaps hard to find, but my husband got me 7 days in May for Christmas and I have a 2nd copy of Executive Action I'd be happy to lend you if you are unable to locate it.

Not sure where you are, so I will check your bio.

Dawn

[Paul Troglia]

To Dawn and Al,

I do believe in conspiracies. Watergate was a conspiracy. Lincoln's assasination was a conspiracy. Julius Ceasar and the Ides of March was a conspiracy (if you believe Shakespeare). But guys, there was proof in all of those. Conjecture, suppositions, theories, are all just that -- impassioned, yes, but without proof. I saw Executive Action when it came out, saw JFK, saw lots of movies. What is seeing movies supposed to mean? You really don't use them as proof, do you? Certainly not you Dawn, you're a lawyer, for Pete's sake.

The evidence against Oswald as the sole shooter is overwhelming. In court, I guess they'd call it the preponderance--beyond a reasonable doubt. If you want to question his motive, okay, you have lots of wiggle-room there, and I commend any effort to figure that demented pipsqueak out. But don't give him something as sublime as a conspiracy. He doesn't rate it.

Al-- JFK was going to pull out of Nam. He knew the South Vietnamese would have to carry the battle themselves. But if you're looking for a culprit , don't look at Kennedy. It is no secret who the must carry the burden of Vietnam, and it isn't just Johnson. Robert Macnamara was the bright, shining lie of Vietnam. Blame him.

[Al Carrier]

Al-- JFK was going to pull out of Nam. He knew the South Vietnamese would have to carry the battle themselves. But if you're looking for a culprit , don't look at Kennedy. It is no secret who the must carry the burden of Vietnam, and it isn't just Johnson. Robert Macnamara was the bright, shining lie of Vietnam. Blame him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul,

I don't blame Johnson, nor am I so shortsighted to blame McNamara. Decisions were made througout the VN war due to poor or corrupt intelligence. The issue here is the immediate turnaround in dealing with SE Asia, immediately after the assassination. Don't you find that a little odd? What spooked the White House into committing to a cause that JFK was in the midst of pulling out of in a matter of a few days after his demise?

Al